User talk:Debresser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
What's up?
QuestionMark arial.png
I mainly follow up on pages from my watchlist, occasionally adding new pages to it that spiked my interest.
QuestionMark arial.png
I am happily busy with my beloved wife, Miriam.
Add daughter: Channa.
And son: Aharon.
Add daughter: Sheina Chava

Can you help identify these favicons?[edit]

I would like to make a little personal use of this talk page.

I collect favicons. I have over 8,000 of them. A few of them are my 'orphans': I do not know the sites they came from.

I you think you could help, and want to do me a big favor, please have a look at them.

My 'orphan' favicons

Thanks! Debresser (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried using Google Images' search by image function. benzband (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply
Yes. But thanks for the suggestion. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I now have over 10,000 favicons, and the number of orphans is down to 11! Debresser (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Special characters[edit]

{{helpme}} Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make [,], and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Wikipedia:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC) --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
If there is, it's well hidden. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
List of XML and HTML character entity references ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Top icons[edit]

There was no parameter until I added |number=, which I later found to be a bad name. So now I changed it to |sortkey=, and it is documented as such on {{top icon}}. So please look further before reverting. I'm sorry if this adds extra work (which I'm willing to take off your hands), but this is better in the long run. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (Might be irrelevant to the case at hand, but ...) Use of {{top icon}} is pretty much not necessary any more. Use of the tag <indicator> is a lot easier. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, 99% of all top icon templates use {{top icon}}, which in turn uses <indicator>. It ensures proper formatting of the icons. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right, but I suspect that was done to insure backwards-compatibility. I completely rewrote my header subpages (like User:StevenJ81/Myheader and simple:User:StevenJ81/header) without {{top icon}} and found it much easier. As I said, my comment was not necessarily relevant to whatever disagreement you have with Debresser; it was intended to be a helpful comment. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Edokter, 1. Did you discuss this? I see no discussion that concerns preference of "sortkey" over "number"? 2. Why didn't you change all the documentation pages as well? 3. Did you ever hear of WP:BRD? 4. Did you ever hear of If it ain't broke, don't fix it? Debresser (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I was the one that introduced the number parameter in the first place, and quite recently at that. I didn't like it as it was clearly misnamed, so I changed it. Should I argue with myself? I was not aware it was already in use. I changed the main documentation (on {{top icon}}) immediately, then found some templates still listed the number parameter. I also announced the new parameter on WP:VPT so everyone can use it now (the old parameter was never announced). I really don't get what the problem is... you don't even use |number= on your user page, but an even older one that hasn't worked for over a year. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
You more or less made my point for me. Changing the names of the parameters leaves people with broken code. That is precisely why you shouldn't do it. You don't WP:OWN any of these templates, that you decide what you rename parameters to and do so every once in a while according to your whim. If you do so, at least 1. take care they are backwards compatible 2. change the documentation pages. I think this is a serious behavioral issue, and feel strongly your edits should be reversed and your edit submitted for community review. Please explain yourself. Perhaps I don't understand something. Debresser (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed you don't. The parameter was in beta, ie. for testing only. Really, the was no parameter until I added it just two weeks ago. So the little use it may have is easily corrected. Don't make any change out to be about ownership. The reason the old parameters don't work anymore is because we switched to using <indicator> two years ago, and sorting was disabeld in the proces (by the change in /core, not by me). I just now re-added that possibility, so why the flack? Discuss the parameter name on Template talk:Top icon if you have to, but I won't stand being reprimanded by someone who doesn't see the bigger picture. Your reverts actually broke those templates and left a discrepancy with the 200+ other templates I edited. Yes, someone added the number parameter prematurely to those templates; I'm not on his back about it. I think long-term, and most people know that. I welcome any review. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I see, and from what you tell me, you indeed made an improvement, which I can only welcome. That, however, can not detract from the two things I mention: making the parameters backwards compatible is easy enough ({{{icon-nr|{{{number|{{{sortkey|}}}}}}}}} or something like that), and changing the documentation is something you definitely should do. Do you plan to do these two things? Debresser (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to prevent any parameter wildgrowth. All the old parameters were made obsolete two years ago. Any documentation still stems from the old days, but I'll see what I can do. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding what you call "parameter wildgrowth". Perhaps there is a way to detect and replace usage of old parameters? The documentation pages of those templates where you replaces number by sortkey should definitely be updated by you, that is a reasonable expectation. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Andy M. Wang beat me to it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I see. That is regarding the documentation pages. What about detecting old parameter usage? Or taking care of backward compatibility? Debresser (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The old parameters were made obsolete two years ago, so I see no point in resurecting them, and I am not going to fix every old parameter usage. If users really want ordering, they have to use |sortkey themselves. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Edokter: One way would be to add a tracking category, something along the lines of Special:Diff/720425195. The point to add it would be at {{top icon}}, but I'll abstain. (don't know if it's worth the effort?) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 16:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I am sure there are not that many instances. I would be willing to change all the old parameters in a few hours (if there aren't many more than I expect) some 20 hours from now e.g. Since changes were made to the template, it is only a matter of good form to provide that service. Otherwise we should have left the old parameters. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that can all be done with good intentions, but I personally will not modify other users' spaces, even if it may be a good service. Note that most users are still using |icon_nr= for a very long time, and they edit as if the topicon misordering is not a big deal anyway. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I have made such technical edits to templates in userspace in the past, and have good experience with it, and no problems with doing it again. What I don't remember is how to code it. You don't need an existing category, because even a non-existing category page will show pages that go there. I think {{#if:{{{number|}}}|[[Category:Fix]]|{{#if:{{{icon-nr|}}}|[[Category:Fix]]|}}}} should do it? I remember there being an issue with if the parameter is defined (like | number = {{{number|}}}) or not (like | number = ), that the latter is perhaps not found by this code? Debresser (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah, I think it's similar to something like Special:Diff/720425195 without {{Main other}} and addressing multiple named params. Again, it can be done, but I personally still honestly think it's getting a bit fussy to track this. I also take Edokter's absence as agreement with what I think as well. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 16:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I do agree it is not worth tracking and fixing. When top icons switched to indicators, it was made very clear the old parameters would no longer work. I announced the new parameter on WP:VPT and everyone can go from there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The real problem being that you think that things like this should be announced by any one editor, instead of agreed upon by consensus. And even in the case of consensus, no serious template editor, and I have worked closely with many of them, being not a novice to field myself, deprecates a parameter without providing either backwards compatibility or changing all occurrences. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Would anybody have serious problems with it, if I did this myself? Debresser (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I've stated my views above... but I wouldn't object if you added tracking categories. As for changing users' pages (probably needs consensus elsewhere), depending on the number of incorrect uses, you might even need to submit a BRFA. For the record, I'm not encouraging this. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 20:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You are making this out to be bigger than it actually is. And I did not deprecate those paramters, the devs did. I simply reintroduced it. Your only beef is that I changed the paramenter name not two weeks after I did so. I really don't need consensus for that. If I have to run every little change, in the test phase, by the community, nothing would be completed. What is the real issue here? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd do this manually, not with a bot. I have no other issues than those I wrote above. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: I am now working on the pages that are appearing in Category:Fix. I see no reason to use a more descriptive name for a tracking category, which I intend to remove within 24 hours. Debresser (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, somce interesting cases came up, like {{PubMed indexed}}, {{Virginia Tech ribbon}}, {{WikiOgre}}, Wikipedia:WikiPlatypus/topicon, User:EWikist/WikiFun Police/WikiFun Police Topicon, {{WikiProject Star Trek Top}}, {{DOOM}}, {{Template:Arbitration Clerk topicon}}, {{Eventualist}}, {{JLOWP}}, {{Grump}}, {{Pokeme}}, {{WikiWitch-icon}}, {{Olympicrings}}, {{Pageprotection}} and most seriously User:Jimbo Wales/guestbook/icon. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We already have 870 cases, not counting the once I replaced already. 870! I think this should be a lesson for you not to replace parameters without providing backwards compatibility. What right did you have to render a parameter inactive that is in use on almost a thousand userpages? I am really angry at you for this. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Again; they have not worked for over a year, and no one complained. I introduced a new parameter that is more versatile, and named it accordingly. Your anger is highly misplaced. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I do appreciate the new parameter, but it also rendered the old one inactive, and that was careless. Could you, as an admin, please help me out on User talk:Jimbo Wales/guestbook/icon? Debresser (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't careless; it didn't work anyway. And such situations are an excellent opportunity to cleanup stale parameters. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Done well over 1,000 instances. there are 26 pages left, all because of fully protected pages. I have dropped a request to some 5 editors, and there will be a few left that will need admin help. Debresser (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Too bad you did not remove the obesolete parameters; they are useless and will never come back. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand your point, and to a certain measure agree with it. My reasons were 1. to minimize interference on userpages 2. because it would take more time, including because it would be hard to do with AWB 3. because it is always possible somebody will revive them at a later point in time.
I also understand that when you coded the "sortkey" parameter, the old "icon_nr" parameter was not active, still, since you added the functionality for "sortkey", it would have been easy to provide backward compatibility, and in view of the many instances (way over 1,000) I don't understand why you didn't do that. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Wildgrowth. Sometimes a clean break from all the old baggage helps maintain a sane template landscape. Providing backward compatibility isn't helpfull if it means a parameter ends up with four(!) names. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help a bit more. There are 8 pages left with the old parameter. Perhaps you could edit the first four of them?

  • User:Bahamut0013 Fully protected page of deceased user with 4 instances of "icon_nr" that have to be changed to "sortkey".
  • User:Franamax Fully protected page of deceased user with 1 instance of "icon_nr" that has to be changed to "sortkey".
  • User:Gunmetal_Angel Fully protected page with one instance of | icon_nr = {{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}} that has to be changed to | icon_nr = {{{sortkey|{{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}}}}}.
  • User:Jclemens/icons Fully protected page with 3 instances of "icon_nr" and 4 instances of "number" that have to be replaced by "sortkey"(notably to only one to have "number" parameters in use).
  • User:LadyofShalott Fully protected page with 2 instances of "icon_nr" that have to be changed to "sortkey". Posted on user talkpage.
  • User:NQ/nqup.css Fully protected css page with 1 instance of "icon_nr" that has to be changed to "sortkey". Another page depends on this change. Posted on user talkpage.
  • User:Equazcion Completely unclear what is happening on this page. Posted on talkpage.
  • User:Interlude65 Reverted my fix, and said on the talkpage he'll take care of it.

Admin help[edit]


I would like to ask any admin to fix the first four instances above, to finish this job. Over 1,000 pages were fixed, just 7 remain... Debresser (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've corrected them, unprotected Gunmetal's userpage since there is no more need for protection, and reduced the protection on Jclemens' userpage so he can edit his own userpage again. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal discussion[edit]

Debresser It is very likely that Lemongirl942 arrived the artcle by WP:STALKING my (other volunteer) edit summaries, as she did here,diff and then here,diff after she uncivilly attacked my paid work here.diff. The paid work had been up for 14 months and various other editors had contributed/reviewed without indecent/discourse. As a paid editor, I can't edit/restore the content in article space, and it can take months to get an edit request answered, so restoring even improved prose is no simple task. Her departure from the guidance (tagging, wholesale deletion, and then leaving the tag), established in WP:DT, which has been published since 2010,diff She practices disruptive editing on a daily basis imho.

I hope you will take the time to read WP:Local consensus, which cannot override Wikipedia-wide consensus. The local consensus here appears to support the passage I added in #6, yet of her own accord, Lemongirl942 again removed some of the content. [diff] In an attempt to avoid having her disruptive editing technique -- disrupted.

I would not concern myself with the discussion about this Help page if it were not for the fact that it is being added to face of the tag templates. I appreciate that there is a "local consensus" in this discussion, I apologize for losing my cool with her, but other editors deserve to know why she is here and because of the Wikipedia wide visibility of this help page, the discussion is more important than inconveniencing a few electrons. Finally, I don't believe I've ever placed a banner tag in four years of editing, I use inline and section tags.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 19:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I switched the editors. Please see my changed post on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thanks for your clarification. Do you think we should restore this to the see also section? It is the guidance on the matter that has been active since 2010, would be nice to collect it all in a central location. Thanks again for your clarification. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 20:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess so. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

(This wandered off topic from the Help page discussion, so I brought it here instead.) It's been two years since the Foundation's paid (declared) editing consensus, and a small group of editors has been allowed to sustain their POV into the matter. (Again, we are tasked to judge the content of the article, not the intent of the editor.) A recent instance I wish you could have seen, concerns a lack of integrity surrounding an AfD I stumbled into. The final version in article space had (pruned by at least 10?) fewer references than my version[1]. And I was warned not to add reliably sourced content back into the article after reverting a revert of my content.[2] Then, the involved editor (after voting and pruning) hatted conversations in the AfD, which included my list of the better references that apply to the subject.[3] This is not what I would call conduct that is congruent with the goals of the Foundation, especially for editors who primarily involve themselves with compliance issues.

As a declared paid editor, I do not work in, nor even visit the company offices. I am a buffer between the PR guy, who openly admits he cannot write neutrally (his background is marketing mine is tech), and the submitted (AfC) product. The idea that somebody who works in the office daily, with no knowledge of the guidelines, holds some kind of superior position among inferiors seems subjective. Finally, the writing is much like the job of a paralegal. The law (policies and guidelines) are primary when composing and knowing platform (similar to the old WordPerfect editor IMHO) is secondary, but another good reason to hire a specialist -- who is one-step removed. When I am confronted with an inferior understanding of the written guidelines, I can't take it to ANI or COIN and expect a neutral outcome (nor any outcome come to think of it). My only real recourse is to start an RfC to see if the local consensus reflects the wider consensus. For this I am accused of being an tendentious paid COI editor. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 14:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


You should self-revert your 1RR violation. You can retain the "improvements". You should not misuse Wikipedia's narrative voice to say "Jerusalem" is in Israel. Wikipedia can't say that Jerusalem is in Israel because it is an NPOV violation. If you mean West Jerusalem say West Jerusalem. This has been discussed endlessly and please do not start another fire. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Give me some time to look into that Rfc you mentioned. If I was wrong, I will self-revert. I made this edit in good faith, as I am sure you understand from my post on your talkpage and the edit summaries.
You are, however, completely wrong about something else. If there is one thing that is not good about somebody's edit, but other things are good, just make a partial revert. The other changes I made are just fine, and it was rude to revert all of it. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It says in that Rfc that there "There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine." It does not say what to do instead. Also notice that the Rfc was about the Jerusalem article only, and is binding for 3 years only. A simple search of Wikipedia teaches that there are 438 instances of Jerusalem, Palestine on Wikipedia and 9,268 of Jerusalem, Israel. That in itself already makes a point in favor of "Jerusalem, Israel", but in any case shows that both alternatives are considered completely acceptable on Wikipedia. Also compare the Google search results, which are comparable: 331,000 to 5,950,000. So what should be done? The answer is simple : don't change anything without consensus. Since the article originally said "Jerusalem, Israel", there is no consensus for changing that. The conclusion is that your edit, as well as the edit of Cliftonian, changed a consensus version without showing consensus to do so, and should be reverted. If you want to insist on 1RR, I am willing to revert, but my argument is solid, and there is no reason to insist on formalities since it is clear the consensus version should and will be restored in the end.
I will also post on the talkpage, and propose to post here if you want me to revert the 1RR violation, but keep the substantial discussion on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand. My only concern is with constructions like Jerusalem, Israel or Jerusalem, Palestine because they are unambiguous NPOV violations. I think it's better to simply say Jerusalem and leave it at that. I'm going to be away in a forest for while so I'll leave it with you to consider and pick it up again next week. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand your point. On the other hand, we have hundreds and thousands of them on Wikipedia, and nobody is proposing to change all of them. Especially since both Jerusalem, Israel and Jerusalem, Palestine redirect to the same Jerusalem article.
We could open an Rfc and create a WP:JERUSALEM page, analogous to WP:WESTBANK. There are basically 3 options: 1. change all instances and remove both "Israel" and "Palestine", 2. keep all articles as they are, 3. decide that the rule is that there is no rule and local consensus will decide in all cases, which means keeping the present anarchy. IMHO the first alternative has no viable chance of being accepted` the third alternative is a non-solution, and is therefore not likely to be accepted, in addition to the fact that practically it will mostly come down to the same conclusion as the second, just after a lot of edit wars and discussions; the question therefore is if we want to make the second alternative, which is identical to what I argued above regarding the Birthright Israel article, into an official Wikipedia guideline? Debresser (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, perhaps you meant that "[[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]]" and [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]" is worse than "[[Jerusalem, Israel]]" and "[[Jerusalem, Palestine]]". I agree with you. That opens a fourth alternative, change only "[[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]]" or [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]" to "[[Jerusalem, Israel]]" and "[[Jerusalem, Palestine]]", and keeping all other cases as is. I would be fine with that proposal as well. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I accept the first alternative; it's what most nations and organizations adhere to. Sepsis II (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I beg to differ. We are not talking about the question if Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but if Jerusalem is in Israel. The facts above are clear enough. I even remember this clearly from elementary school. :)
Do you think it is a good idea to open a new Rfc about this, perhaps on the Jerusalem talkpage? Debresser (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification: I opened an Rfc on this subject at Talk:Jerusalem#Is_Jerusalem_in_Israel_or_Palestine. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Top icon help[edit]

Hey, thanks for the help on my top icons! I have been away from Wikipedia and editing for over a year and came back to find that something had changed. I just couldn't figure out what it was. Nice surprise to log in this morning and find all of them back again. Thanks! Wikipelli Talk 13:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice to receive such positive feedback! Enjoy! Debresser (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not interested. I firmly believe in Jimbo! Debresser (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


I don't appreciate your tone saying "another undiscussed initiative that isn't a good idea". That's not very nice. No, Jews aren't a tribe, but they are a collection of tribes. The precedent is Samaritans, who are in Ten Lost Tribes (Tribes of Israel). Samaritans are three tribes, Ehpraim, Menasseh, and Levi. Something needn't be strictly one tribe to be in tribes of israel. Tribes of Israel as you should know is the analogous article to "Israelites".--Monochrome_Monitor 07:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Jews are the result of over 3,000 years of history, evolving from tribes. That includes converts.
My tone is a reflection of my exasperation at you making yet another change that is incorrect or at least controversial. I accept that you act in good faith, but I have the right to be frustrated by your lack of common sense in editing Judaism and Jews related articles and categories. In addition, this was by far not the first time, and still you do not feel the need to discuss before you make changes. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


Please see WP:TPO. Modifying my comments is incredibly annoying. Please stop doing that. nableezy - 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of that page. I thought you would only be grateful if I fixed the occasional mistake. Since you are not, I will of course not repeat such edits. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
That would be great. Next, would you mind explaining to me what you don't get about contested moves? Because when a move is challenged you don't just move it to another similar title you like more, you open a request for move and ask for comments from others. Please self-revert that move. nableezy - 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Why should I? If a vocal minority opposes the move, I am willing to take into account any reasonable arguments. You voiced a concern of a purely technical nature, regarding the parentheses, so removed the parentheses. If your POV will continue to blind you, and you will continue your edit war and revert again, perhaps I will make an official move request, but to give in to your unreasonable POV from the start? Debresser (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


I thought you had more respect for my work than this. If this had been a brand-new statement, you would (of course) have been correct to delete-and-then-justify. In fact, this statement had been stable for four years until Enigmaman came by, and there was a healthy discussion on the talk page already. With all due respect, you really should have let the discussion run its course. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do respect your work. That doesn't mean I have to respect this one sentence. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You do understand that I did not originally write the sentence, right? The sentence has been a stable part of the article for around four years. On that basis, it could be assumed that it was accepted as (more-or-less) BLUE. In other words, it's not that it's an unsourced statement, but simply a statement for which it is unnecessary to state a source. If you disagree with that, then you should ask for a source. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I do understand that not you originally wrote the sentence. In any case, I was surprised by you taking this personally. I did not mean anything personal when I removed that sentence. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't exactly take it personally, and didn't think you meant it that way. But I did wonder why you felt the default position for a (non-absurd) stable-for-four-years statement was to remove first and ask questions later. You never responded to that bit. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
But I did. I repeat: Wikipedia policy is to remove any unsourced and challenged statement. I know, the best thing is to tag it, see if somebody can source it. But that is of the statement is likely to be true. This statement, in the form it stood, is not true. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Feh. It was challenged for relevance, not accuracy. And as for its truth, well, we must agree to disagree about that. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


I'm going to report that if it isn't reverted by the time I finish the report. nableezy - 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

1. What would you report that for? 2. After your recent edit warring on Ancient synagogues in Palestine, for which I did not report you in the end, I would have expected a less vindictive tone. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Well somebody reverted it for you, so Ill finish my report and file it and you can explain your contempt for established consensus at AE when Im done. nableezy - 22:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I already did so on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser nableezy - 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Will reply there. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC at Southern Levant[edit]

As you were involved in the DRN, I thought I'd let you know about the current RFC on the Southern Levant talk page here Drsmoo (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Will have a look soon. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Commented. Very interesting. Please also see the subsection I added there. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit my talk page[edit]

I only care to comment on content at specific articles. Sepsis II (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to respect your wish, with the exception, of course, of formal notices that Wikipedia obliges me to post on your talkpage. Please be aware though, that your unwillingness to engage in dialog will not work in your favor, should I want to pursue my suspicions regarding a possible POV in your editing on Wikipedia in a formal user review. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that your edits are almost exclusively in the IP-conflict area, and that you have been blocked before because of edits in this same field. Not a good sign. Not that I don't edit the same area, and haven't been blocked myself. But still... I am starting to become suspicious of you. I am also noticing a few talkpage discussions where you are taking an illogical position. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied. Consensus seems to be that this needs to be closed. Also note that my edit was repeated within 2 minutes (!) of my self-revert, so was evidently "The Right Thing To Do". Debresser (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Meir Ba'al HaNes[edit]

This is not really an article, is it? It's more like a disambiguation page. The organisations mentioned each have their own pages.Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct, but then you should turn it into a real disambiguation page. Not just remove one category. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I did some steps in that direction. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


Could you please take a look at this? There are editors I choose not to deal with, maybe you are more detached.
For the second one: what about changing the title? Land of Israel in stead of just Israel? There must be some accepted term. Israel and occupied territories might not please others :-) Common sense doesn't help much. "IAA-administered territories" would be my favourite. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The first I reverted. I think that quote is very illustrative of the (indeed subjecive) feelings of the Israelis. On the other hand, that is not very important, and if he would insist to remove it, I wouldn't oppose further.
I am aware of that edit, and at some time in the future will restore all those that sources say are in Israel.
The titles of both Ancient synagogues in Palestine and this article are not good. I recently proposed to move the first, but my proposal didn't receive enough support, because of a block of 4 editors from WP:PALESTINE. Regarding Land of Israel, I don't think that would be an improvement. Debresser (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Basic distinction: "subjective" is bad if referring to EDITORS. The ALLEGEDLY subjective feelings of parties to a conflict are a hugely RELEVANT, and if proven: OBJECTIVE and ESSENTIAL part of the conflict. "Allegedly" ends where good sources are presented. Reverting as such doesn't bring much.
The Golan is not part of int'ly recognised Israel, nor of Palestine, and only in part or questionably of the Land of Israel as usually defined. "IAA-administered territories" was a joke, but a very serious one. ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Kseniya Rappoport ‎[edit]

Hi, Debresser. No, no, that's what I figured. I wold say that since EthniCelebs is, by it own admission, "for entertainment purposes only" and not to be used as a reference source, that adding it as a second source does hurt in that it can suggest to other editors that it's OK to use. Also, if the cite that's given is truly RS, we don't really need a second one, right? Thank you, by the way, for adding all those footnotes; I probably should have sent you a thanks as well. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a fact tag to one statement. I coudn't find a source, not within one minute at least. If nobody else will come up with a source within some reasonable time, it suppose that second sentence may be removed. By the way, I don't doubt it is correct, just that it is unsourced. I never remove information that it don't doubt is correct just because there is no source, unless it would be libelous, of course. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand you believe the unsourced personal-life claim is correct, so I have to ask, and I say this with respect to an obviously thoughtful editor. How do you know this? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Which claim precisely? That she went to school 155, studied French and liked puppet-theater? Debresser (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. It's primarily the school; we can't make claims that she attended Harvard, Yale or even "School 155" without RS citing. (I was exaggerating for effect there, to make the reason evident.) That she studied French and liked puppet theater is actually non-encyclopedic trivia unless she went on to work in French or in puppet theater. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't really mind removing all that, because it is indeed trivia. Which school she went to, is also something, which I think is not really important, so as far as I am concerned it can all stay off the page. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Messiah claimants[edit]

A user you dealt with in May has come back to do the same thing again. Just letting you know since you dealt with him/her before. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you are dealing with him/her quite fine. I'll keep an eye out as well. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


I've been following your discussion here and I agree with your points, but I would advise you not to call other editors "stupid" (even if they deserve it). It is against against Wikipedia policy and also not a logical way to argue. --GHcool (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I know. Sepsis II is a very POV editor, if I can say so in English, and I find him disruptive at times. It was a bit too emotional for Wikipedia, although on the other hand, there is no injunction against being a bit emotional at times. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Southern Levant for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Levant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Levant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Posted my opinion there. Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel sock[edit]

Widr and I have been kept pretty busy as Til keeps finding new IP addresses. A range block request is at ANI and MikeV blocked for 48 hours. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed, and thanks. I had no idea the issue was a malignant sock. He did seem a bit too knowledgeable about Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a regular editor on Judaism articles, and often find myself on Israel-related pages as well. As such, I am pretty well familiar with the rules. Thanks again. Debresser (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


I really dont understand the belligerence here. You seem intent on stoking some sort of conflict between us. You could have just included the two sentences agreed to, but rather than do that you choose to edit-war in the maximalist position. Thats fine, its up to you, but youre edit is against the policy objections of several editors, and I am going to file an AE report about it later. Or you can self-revert and seek consensus through an RFC or something. But edit-warring to include disputed material in a BLP probably isnt the wisest course for you. Up to you. I have dinner plans, so Ill check back on this later in the evening. nableezy - 23:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Have a nice dinner. :) I am not belligerent. You know well, that I have agreed with you on many occasions. Even today I was not afraid to change my opinion and agree with you.[4] On the Mahmoud Abbas article as well I have expressed my agreement with a compromise[5], even though I find it less than ideal, but you rejected it, amidst baseless accusations.[6] I have argued my points well and calmly on the talkpage. I get the impression that this page is being censored by you and Sepsis II (who is much less of a civilized discussion man than you are, unfortunately, and has even stronger POVs). There has been no WP:ARBPIA violation, that I am aware of. Please note that over 24 hours past between my reverts.[7][8] Please comment at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mahmoud_Abbas, to resolve the issues, rather than edit war. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Just like 3 reverts is not an entitlement neither is 1. And to that point, you are edit-warring, against several editors. In a BLP, contested material stays out absent a consensus to retain it. In all articles the stable version remains absent a consensus to change it. You seem to think those rules do not apply to you. Well, we're going to find out. nableezy - 02:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE#Debresser nableezy - 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any edit warring, the two edits are clearly over 25 hours apart. Drsmoo (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification, Nableezy. I have responded there. I hope this time WP:AE will call you to order. You'll recognize much of my reply there from my reply to you above. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Listen, I dont actually have a terrible view of you. I just cant stand the reverts without consensus. Without a consensus the article stays as it was. Yes, that can suck at times, but its the way it is. I learned that the hard way, there were several topic bans that I got specifically over the legality of Israeli settlements line because I felt that the people opposed to it had no backing in policy and that they were POV editors who were doing nothing but obstructing what was neutral, verifiable, due weight ... . And yes I still think I was right on the merits and the consensus that developed bears that out I think, but I was wrong in the reverts. I should not have been just dismissing others, I should have left the articles in what I felt a deficient state absent a consensus to change them. I dont think you should be shut down, or removed from the topic area, and Im perfectly willing and able to work with you. But I dont see how you can expect me to do that when you just brush me aside as a "POV editor". Obviously I have a point of view, but I very much dispute that my edits betray that POV. I dont go around writing Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine, I dont even write that Hebron is in occupied Palestine, I dont put occupied every single time East Jerusalem is mentioned, I dont do a lot of the crap that I would equate to an diametrically opposed POV. I try to edit with NPOV in mind, and because I focus in an area that I feel a specific POV (right wing Israeli) is over-represented my edits may well reflect edits that appear to oppose that POV. You argued to have "Jerusalem, Israel" be the standard where "Jerusalem" currently is used. You did not argue that East Jerusalem should say "East Jerusalem, [occupied] Palestinian territories", even though those are two relatively equally weighted views for West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem, maybe even a greater proportion of RSs supporting EJ, oPt over WJ, I. I saw that as a manifest example of "POV editing". But I didnt say that, I made an argument based on our policies, divorced entirely from the "POV" I thought the author, you, was promoting. And I did not edit-war to try to force any change. Im fine withdrawing the AE request if you agree to not perform further reverts at the Abbas article absent a consensus for your revert. Id like you to agree to something more wide-ranging than that, that being to follow WP:ONUS and not constantly revert contested material without having a consensus for it. That isnt bowing to an unreasonable POV as you wrote of my objections in an earlier dispute. I promise you I will show you the same courtesy. If I make a change that is disputed, no matter how weak I think the reasoning for that is, I wont revert without getting more people commenting and achieving a consensus. That sound fair to you? nableezy - 06:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll reply in short, because my keyboard is broken and I type with my mouse. I do respect you, and have said so clearly at WP:AE. Regarding "Jerusalem, Israel", I proposed 4 alternatives, not just that one. My preference was based not on my POV, but on 20:1 in sources. I too try to edit neutrally.
Regarding the Abbas article, I sincerely feel the one extra sentence is not undue or recentism, and 2 sentences is a good compromise. I do have the feeling the article was being censored, perhaps subconsciously. I don't like the idea of a "consensus" of 3 POV editors (with respect), if the only outside opinion by TM is being ignored, WP:DRN didn't work, WP:BLPN is ignored, and I think I bring some badly needed balance. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I withdrew the AE report. But to the point, the outside opinion wasnt ignored, you choose to revert to include the paragraph that you, against 3 other users, including one not involved who tried to come up with a compromise, agreed was UNDUE. That was my problem, reverting what you knew was opposed by everybody else. In a BLP no less. In my view, once some new edit is challenged it stays out without a consensus agreeing to return it. When you just brush aside the objections of others, even if you think they are without merit and come from irredeemable POV editors whose sole purpose on this site is to sully the image of Israel and or Jews everywhere, even if you think they are anti-semitic, anti-Israel, anti-humanity as a whole, what you do is cause the people that you are supposedly working with in this "collaborative project" to dig in and not want to reach any sort of compromise with you. Fine, you think it was being censored. What possible gain is there in saying it is censorship? You think anybody is going to be convinced to change their mind if you jump up and down and say they are censoring? Of course not. Make your argument without talking about the editors involved or their motivations. And make it without reverting. That might actually accomplish something, like a compromise on the content that even if you dont think is ideal you can accept. If I wanted to be a dick about it I could have re-reverted you. And you would have waited 24 hours and done the same. And I then repeat that process. What exactly gets accomplished in that cycle? The article being how you want in the time between your revert and mine? That seem like anything worthwhile? Cus it doesnt to me. nableezy - 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yiddish dialects[edit]

In Yiddish dialects#Varieties, I added the clarifying remark because the quotation itself is not very clear to a lay reader. It is hard to figure out what "period of reforms" might be meant; I'm still not sure what the intended period is. But from researching a little on Wikipedia itself, I came to the conclusion that the intended meaning can only be that Western Yiddish became extinct sometime in the 19th century (although the linked website presents evidence that may contradict this conjecture and that Western Yiddish might have survived longer, considering that there were still apparent semi-speakers in Orange County in 1997). I don't think Wikipedia should present readers with mystifying quotations like this absent any kind of clarification. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

1. You added the comment outside the reference tag, to explain something that was said inside the reference tag. 2. You should refrain from interpreting sources, since you may be wrong, and that would be worse than leaving the issue open. 3. It is just bad style to add comments inside text. 4. With an eye on the future, if this were a statement in the text of the article proper, not inside a reference, I'd recommend to tag it with the {{Vague}} template. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll add a {{clarify}} template then. Just because it's inside a quotation does not mean it's not nevertheless vague and in need of clarification. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)